Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nyon Conference/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 23:30, 2 February 2012 [1].

---

Nyon Conference

Nyon Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Nyon Conference/archive1

Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is th emost thoroughly prepared of my articles to head into the process, which is just as well. Would be great to be in a position to feature it 75 years on, later this year. Has been Milhist A-class reviewed (here) and Dank's given it another look since. I can provide any of the journal articles on request. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've finally found a picture from the Conference with the possibility of a FUR. Also, I've added and used as supplementary sources articles from The Times and The Manchester Guardian, which should help on coverage but comes as a technical detriment to the copyedit. Apologies to Dank for the non-preferable order of those two things, but they are only minor additions in terms of prose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm away from home and don't have my Chamberlain references with me, but I'll do what I can and then doublecheck my Chamberlain bios in ten days. Purely stylistic, but why is Anthony Eden, the four times he is mentioned in the article always referred to by full name and he's linked three of them? Who attacked the German ships? Also, I'm afraid your reference to pirates may confuse the reader, what was really being dealt with was freebooters, no? And our article unrestricted submarine warfare doesn't mention Italy ... Just from a hasty reading, it strikes me you could use more context about European response to the Spanish Civil War ... Gotta catch a plane, more in a day or three.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rearranged the first paragraph to more quickly define "piracy" and explain why the term is used. I dealt with the "Eden" problem. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a sentence concerning "more context about European response to the Spanish Civil War" - namely pointing out Soviet intervention on the one hand, Italian and German on the other (the subtleties of the French response not suited to such a brief mention). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I copyedited this last week (it was a request at WP:FACG). These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
• The Guardian didn't move to London until 1964
• Be consistent in how editions are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected numbers 2 and 3, could you clarify which references you mean for #1? I've only found one to which this applies – "A Conditional Refusal: "Absolute Parity" Needed". Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall there having been two, but can't locate another, so I'll say just the one you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Done - well, I think you meant using single quotes instead of double - if so, that's done. Think it's just spotchecks and image review to do now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NBSP—I fixed some of them, please do the rest. --Z 04:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: although I am an entrant in this year's Wikicup, I will not be entering this nomination. I may, if this nomination shows that significant development is necessary, enter this article's hypothetical second nomination. But I hope it does not come to that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Article does not seem ready, presentation is confusing. I prepared specific comments for the first two sections, but it's present throughout. Suggest some work be done. Not certain it can be done during the course of this FAC.

Let me know of improvements, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[A lot of comments archived to talk, may thanks to Wehwalt for his patience and attention to detail. I do so as to not put off further reviewers. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)]

I think that's all, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've read through your comments. If I don't reply soon, it will be because I accept your answer; I will only mention specific things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support I have not checked sources or images; content with other things and checks with my own knowledge of Chamberlain's early foreign policy. I would get rid of the three red links, especially the one that includes the word "Admiral" as part of the name (good thing he went into the Navy, if that's really part of his name and a deed poll wasn't involved). Well done. No one can say I haven't put you through the wringer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Admiral" link was an error, which I've fixed. The other two are in my opinion sufficiently defensible now that that one has been fixed. 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

One comment taken from above, archived, then reposted just to reply to in the sake of completeness:

• "Both countries would patrol the high seas and territorial waters of signatory countries." In the Mediterranean?"

I assume your question is "There were high seas in the Mediterranean?". If so, yes - the source is clear - and in other work I've read that territorial waters have been massively enlarged since then in terms of nautical miles from the coast.

No, I understand that. I mean, were non-Mediterranean territorial waters patrolled? Say Atlantic France near Spain?

It's good question, but one which I can answer on examination of the treaty itself: no, they weren't included. Spanish territorial waters weren't party to the agreement, because Spain wasn't, so I can only assume that no attacks happened on the high seas in the Atlantic (where operation was more difficult because of sea conditions, one might guess). Added "in the Mediterranean" as suggested. Thanks for clearing that up. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem. Most books rush past this in the hurry to get to Munich. Very interesting to hear more about it. If I have anything else, I'll take it to article talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll also keep this on my watchlist.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• At the size used, about half of the notations on the map are illegible. Would it be possible to increase the font size used for notations, or increase the size of the map?
• File:British_delegation_at_the_Nyon_Conference.png: who holds copyright to this image? The Times, the photographer...?
• File:BlankMap-Europe_no_boundaries.svg: on what source or data set is this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing a new version of the map off a different source. For #2, it doesn't mention an individual copyright on the page (no copyright notice of any kind). If there's a specific photographer-newspaper contract, it isn't noted. That's why I used fair-use and not attempt a corporate copyright approach. Should be fine per WP:NFCC number 10: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" (my emphasis), unless there's some FA-specific rule? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm. There's no FAC-specific requirement above and beyond NFC, but I think you need to reconsider the copyright tag used for that image (and most of the non-free tags indicate that copyright info is required, so if it actually isn't those should be amended; that's not really in the purview of this review, though). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed. This one says "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed." thereby implying that the exact copyright holder may not have been identified. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Map replaced with a differently sourced map, with clearer provenance, and larger labels. Is that better? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support after the copyedits and tweaks. Still would like to know what the British ambassador/whatever was protesting... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Oppose for now' Comment - review incoming, as a heads up to the delegates. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Lead:
  • "The conference was convened in part because Italy had been carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, although the final conference agreement did not accuse Italy directly; instead, the attacks were referred to as "piracy" by an unidentified body. It was designed to strengthen non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War. Italy was not officially at war, nor did any submarine identify itself." I think this would read better with the last sentence shifted before the sentence beginning "It was designed..." so something like "The conference was convened in part because Italy had been carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, although the final conference agreement did not accuse Italy directly; instead, the attacks were referred to as "piracy" by an unidentified body. Italy was not officially at war, nor did any submarine identify itself. The conference was designed to strengthen non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War."
  • Why is submarine linked in the second paragraph when it's already used in the first paragraph? And really, do any readers not know what a submarine is? Same on why is Italy linked in the second paragraph when it's mentioned in the first paragraph?
• Context:
  • "aimed at preventing a proxy war – with" I think you mean "aimed at preventing the proxy war – with" as you are directly referring to one specific proxy war.
    • you are clearly referring to a specific proxy war though - there is definitely one meant with this statement, because you directly then mention the specific belligerents in the following phrase. This one isn't a deal breaker - but it's just an odd phrasing considering the direct mention of specifics later in the sentence.
  • "An Anglo-Italian "Gentleman's Agreement" was signed on 2 January 1937, with each party respecting the rights of the other in the Mediterranean." I'm unclear on what this bit of information has to do with the preceding and succeeding sentences. It's disjointed and lacking context.
    • • Perhaps "Previously, an Anglo-Italian "Gentleman's Agreement" was signed on 2 January 1937, with each party respecting the rights of the other in the Mediterranean." and then explain what problem this agreement was meant to solve.
  • "In May 1937, Neville Chamberlain succeeded Stanley Baldwin as Prime Minister, and adopted a new policy of dealing directly with Germany and Italy." Suggest linking Prime Minster to the correct national article and adding a bit of context like so: "In May 1937, Neville Chamberlain succeeded Stanley Baldwin as British Prime Minister, and adopted a new policy of dealing directly with Germany and Italy."
  • "favouring a significant control effort as the best solution" - jargon - I have NO idea what this means.
  • "As suspected by the other powers, Italy was behind some of these attacks." this implies that it is now known that Italy was behind the attacks but there was no proof at the time. Is this the case? If so, when did it become proven?
  • "...the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, known internationally as a campaign of piracy without reference to Italy." Huh? I am totally lost with that last phrase - it makes no sense in connection with the forgoing.
    • Okay, better but still a bit confusing ... "... the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, referred to in discussion as a campaign of piracy without mention of Italy." which discussions? Prior to the conference? at the conference?
  • "Whilst officially being at peace,[12] the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, known internationally as a campaign of piracy without reference to Italy.[11] These plans would be the basis for a Mediterranean meeting, suggested by French Foreign Minister Yvon Delbos.[11]" - really - no need to cite every sentence with the same exact citation.
  • "The British representative in Rome protested to the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs." protested what? the attack? And what did the Italians do in response?
    • Still not clear what he was protesting though?

Okay, I'm only two paragraphs into the first section - this is a lot of context missing and prose that's hard to decipher. Normally I'd oppose - but I see you did have a peer review. I'll oppose for now and put the rest of my comments on the talk page of the FAC - so as not to bog this down. I do think you deserve a full review but this needs some work before it's up to FA standards for non-specialists. The rest of this will be on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead changes made, with the submarine link moved but retained. The reader could well want more context on that. Will see to the rest shortly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"aimed at preventing a proxy war" ~ I'm afraid I don't see how "the" makes sense. "Proxy war" is a general term and does not refer to one in particular.

"Gentlemen's Agreement" ~ those three consecutive sentences contextualise the following paragraphs (as suggested in this FAC) and refer to Anglo-Italian relations. THe contextualising has to start somewhere - do you have some suggestions of how it could be made less "disjoint"? It has to come before the chronologically later change of PM.

Linked "British Prime Minister".

"significant control effort" ~ reworded;

"Italy was behind some of these attacks" ~ 1950s or so with the publication of Ciano's (Italian foreign minister) diaries, apparently. So after the war. It would be exceptional to mention the source where it is regarded as true; indeed, I reference it to where I got it and not Ciano's diaries, which I haven't seen. The British had their evidence at the time, presumably other people did. Do you suggest altering anything?

"without reference to Italy" ~ well, I've reworded it a bit. Does it need to be clearer, if so, could you articulate your difficulty? Is that it appears to contradict something in particular? We've been over the issue a few times before at ACR and FAC - it is counter-intuitive, but I am trying to state the facts without editorialising, which is challenging.

"Whilst officially being at peace" ~ the first clause is referenced to [12], and it's my standard practice to therefore reference the rest of the sentence with the appropriate reference because otherwise the reader might think that [12] referenced the whole sentence. You mention two consecutive sentences with the same end reference, are there any more examples without my point applying?

"The British representative in Rome" ~ added "but without response". The source says "but 'had been smoothly brushed aside'" quoting one of the people at the meeting's diary.

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In my mind, one "prevents a war between France and Germany", to use a simpler example, rather than "the war".

Anyway, (1) I've mentioned the aim of the Gentleman's agreement, at least in its simplest formulation; "which discussions" ~ all discussions, what changes do you suggest?; Added that the protest was at the attack - is this specific enough? I've noted the points you've put on this FAC's talk page, and will respond there. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Question: are any of those watching or passing by this review prepared to do a spotcheck? I can provide the PDFs, it should be straight forward. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks. "Barbarous" is a direct quote from the source and should be noted as such; other than that, spotchecks of 4 sources found no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reworded - normally throwing the thesaurus at something wouldn't help with CP, but I think it's OK for a single word. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Prose looks ok. A few repeat links I've fixed. Over-referencing is a problem. For example, in the para above Aftermath, 36, 36 in the same sentence! I see 32, 32, 32 above that. Lots of close successive repetitions of ref tags could be looked at with a view to trimming a few. Tony (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed a few repetitions. Were there any more you think are problematic? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This sentence needs to have its grammar fixed: "In the United Kingdom, Eden noted that the savageness of submarine attacks, that attacks on submarines would be restricted to suitably extreme circumstances, and that the two parties in the war would still not be able to engage neutral vessels." The article says that the Republicans were unhappy that belligerent rights were not granted to the Nationalists; are you sure that's correct? Ucucha (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed the grammar in that sentence. As far as belligerent rights, the article notes above that that "Italy continued to request that belligerent rights be given to the Nationalists, so that Republicans and Nationalists would both gain the right to search vessels for contraband" which gives some indication why the Republicans wanted the Nationalists given rights - but actually, this involved both sides getting rights (there being no such things a war with one party) so I've tweaked the article to say this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense. Ucucha (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.